Arizona Immigration Law

[Primula Baggins]

I am not saying that anyone here has said such a thing. People elsewhere (on other blogs and boards, other discussions) have. I was trying to explain a point under discussion, that's all.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, but if we responded to everything that people said elsewhere at other boards and blogs, we would get completely bogged down (or maybe "blogged down"). For instance, the page that I linked to earlier that had the story about the threats made to Judge Bolton that was a liberal blog had a bunch of comments to it that were nothing short of despicable. In theory, someone could raise those comments to explain a point under discussion, but where would it end?

[axordil]

I don't think it's just at other blogs and boards. I think the notion is in common circulation. I've heard variants of it from family members over the years.

Judging when something is a real slippery slope is your job, V-man, but I think the immigration debate has included the cost/benefit of undocumented people as long as there's been an immigration debate: starting around 1830 or so.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree that the issue of the cost/benefit of undocumented people is an important component of the immigration debate.

[Holbytla]

I agree that the issue of the cost/benefit of undocumented people is an important component of the immigration debate.

Well maybe this is a good thread to dovetail into.
This is sniped from Nerdanel's FB page and indirectly the NY Times;



California Court Backs Illegal Immigrant Students

Awesome!
Our (Californian's) tax dollars are paying for illegal immigrants to have reduced tuitions.
This portion of a line from the story boggles my mind;

...illegal immigrants can be eligible for the same reduced tuition at public colleges and universities as legal residents of the state.

So to my simple mind it all boils down to pay taxes to people who are committing a felony or commit a felony and not pay taxes.

I'm all for granting amnesty to all "illegal" immigrants at this point and then either changing the laws or upholding the laws, but to continue on in this way seems to me ludicrous.

[elfshadow]

I understand people's frustration when it comes to using tax dollars to fund any sort of subsidies for people who entered the country illegally. However, in the case of college education, things are not always quite so simple. Often, these undocumented immigrants are people who arrived in this country when they were young children. They have grown up mostly in America and are generally assimilated into American culture. They are just like any other American young adult--only they don't have legal documentation. I don't think it's fair to punish these people for something they had basically no control over. To put it this way, unless we make drastic changes to our immigration law, there are going to be illegal aliens in this country. Would you (impersonal, generic you) rather that undocumented immigrants be educated with a college degree, or not? I would prefer the former. I think, ultimately, it will benefit our society far more to allow these people access to low-cost education than it would be to deny them the privilege.

At the end of the day, though, we badly need immigration reform. Unfortunately, the state of our economy has put this issue on the political backburner. I wish that the GOP had allowed Bush to push through his immigration reform proposals years ago. In my mind, it was one of the best things he ever tried to do as president. It's too bad that he was unsuccessful due to the stubbornness of many of his fellow Republicans.

[nerdanel]

Awesome!
Our (Californian's) tax dollars are paying for illegal immigrants to have reduced tuitions.

As someone who IS part of the "our," after paying California's ridiculously high taxes for the past six years (including law school summers), let me offer a few thoughts on why I feel this is the right decision.

1. "Illegal immigrants" is a manner of phrasing the issue that almost presupposes the answer. After all, illegal is bad! Who would want to give anything to "an illegal," as they are often called? I am concerned about using that phrasing to describe students who entered the country at a very young age. As I wrote in a recent exchange on Facebook, it's hard for me to perceive much practical difference (though I concede the legal difference) between me, born to legal immigrant parents within the state of Virginia and "an illegal" who has lived in the United States since she was one year old (or two, or even four or five). This describes many of the students who seek in-state tuition in California: they are "illegal" through no fault or decision of their own, and the only country they know is mine. I have a hard time using "illegal" or even "undocumented" to refer to these students who have lived in the United States all their lives, though I concede it is legally true (this is what led to the discussion between Anthy and me on FB). But in fact, I can't help but view someone who entered the United States as an infant/toddler, has only since lived in the United States and has only ever considered themselves American...as, simply, one of my fellow Americans.

2. I noted that I am part of the Californian taxpaying "we," but Holby, you spoke correctly in counting yourself part of the "we" as well. You see, all of us US taxpayers are paying to subsidize the education of undocumented immigrants: you have been for at least twenty-eight years. In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held in 1982 that undocumented children were entitled to a free public education (through high school). I support this decision for two reasons. First, children should not be punished for their parents' illegal acts. Second, it does the United States no favors to create an undocumented underclass of uneducated children. It demeans our society to exclude a subset of children living in this country from the public schools, and indeed we have not done so for multiple decades.

3. So now we have a class of students who has grown up American, attended only American schools ... and then at 18, no matter how intelligent and capable, these students face a cruel choice. Many (most?) of them cannot afford to pay out-of-state tuition rates or private school tuition for college; they are particularly disadvantaged because their undocumented parents are usually lower-income so cannot pay out-of-pocket for their higher education. This disadvantage is exacerbated because they are not eligible for any federal financial assistance, including the Stafford, Pell, etc. grants that the rest of us rely on. So, without an affordable in-state alternative (or the rare scholarship that does not check their immigration status), their choices are these:
(a) Return to a "country of origin" in which they have never lived, may not have any remaining family, and may not speak the language. Attempt to attend school there; or
(b) Remain in the US and work unskilled jobs without pursuing higher-education for which they are qualified and in which they are interested. We have discussed recently in another thread that a college degree is a near-prerequisite for entry into the middle class. So, in addition to having to forgo their desire to learn, they will confront a financial glass ceiling -- again, being penalized for a decision that they did not make and did not have input into.

4. It is difficult for me to share your view of these students as "people who are committing a felony" partly because when I think of felons, I don't usually picture infants being carried over the border. Another difficulty that I have is that they are in violation of 8 U.S.C. s. 1325, which is a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

5. Your view also presupposes that these students and/or their parents have not paid taxes. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 50-75 percent of undocumented immigrants do in fact pay federal, state, and local taxes (see page 6 of report, which is page 14 in Adobe)

6. Finally, although it will not solve the overarching problem of illegal immigration, a specific solution to these children's plight is the DREAM Act. The Act will allow undocumented immigrant students with high school degrees who (a) arrived in the US as minors (16 or younger); (b) have been in the US for at least five years as of the date the bill passes; and (c) are of good moral character (i.e., have not committed crimes) the chance to earn permanent residency status. To do so, they will have to complete two years of military service or two years of a four-year university degree. At that point, they will receive temporary residency valid for six years. In other words, the DREAM Act is a path to documented status for children who arrived in the US through no fault of their own and who in many cases do not have any conscious experience living in other country. It would reward a subset of those children - those who actively are seeking higher education or are willing to serve this country through military service - by making legally explicit what is already factually true (at least for those who arrived as infants/toddlers): that they are Americans. Since you, Holby, support amnesty, I think you might agree that this is a targeted, important form of amnesty.

7. So for me it boils down to this: I do not feel that I am so different, having entered the United States at 0, to someone who entered a few months or couple of years after me. But I know that I was fortunate that my parents and I enjoyed all of the benefits of legal status, and that that opened many doors for me, both direct and indirect. Because those doors were open for me, I have had a rich education and vibrant professional experiences; for that I'm grateful to my country. To give up a small portion of my income that's earmarked for taxes, so that other kids who have grown up in my community (albeit with many shut doors) can have access to some of the educational opportunities from which I benefited - I want to do that. As a taxpayer, this is a use of my earnings of which I feel proud.

People might be interested in a couple of stories about the students whom this legislation could help - the students who might seem at first blush to be "illegal immigrants" or even felons:

One Harvard student who entered the US at four faces deportation.

Coming Out Illegal, in which the NY Times magazine discusses the stories of children who have grown up in America without legal status.

[Inanna]

The DREAM Act sounds fantastic, nerdanel. Thanks for informing me about that, I had no idea.

[Holbytla]

See to me the horror lies in the preponderance rather than the abstract, and above all in the failure of the country or the parents to either make someone legal or discard arcane laws.

Trying to have it both ways is not doing anyone any good. They are in fact, and with regards to the laws, either legal or not. The issues either rise from the disregard of the parents or the ineptness of the law.

Either change legislation or change policies or change enforcement. There is no sidestepping the fact that legal taxpayers are paying for illegal, and in many cases immoral subsidies.

And take note of the fact that I endorse amnesty for all current "illegals" as long as we as a country address the issue in a meaningful and lawful way.
Taxation to aid "illegal" people is beyond stupid.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The DREAM Act sounds fantastic, nerdanel. Thanks for informing me about that, I had no idea.

Unfortunately, the DREAM Act hasn't passed Congress, and the likelihood of it doing so it tenuous at best. Like the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, it was attached as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, which was blocked by a GOP filibuster led by Senator McCain (who I note formerly was a strong supporter of immigration reform as well as supporting the possibility of DADT repeal before his recent swing to the right over the past two-plus years). President Obama has indicated that he wants to make passage of the DREAM Act a priority during the so-called lame duck session of the current congress, but it is unclear to me that it will be possible in the current political climate. And if doesn't pass during the lame duck Congress it will be, like DADT repeal, dead in the water given the composition of the new Congress coming in in January.

[Holbytla]

And as an addendum, I would support the notion that benefitting legal students would and should be a priority as their parents and probably themselves have been legal and paying taxes all along the way.
In other words, where are my additional benefits or tax breaks?

[nerdanel]

And as an addendum, I would support the notion that benefitting legal students would and should be a priority as their parents and probably themselves have been legal and paying taxes all along the way.
In other words, where are my additional benefits or tax breaks?

You support an amnesty that would make the same students "legal" and thus eligible for benefits. As I noted (and cited federal government evidence for) above, a majority of undocumented immigrants are in fact paying federal and state income taxes along the way.

Benefiting legal students is a priority. First, every legal student is entitled to in-state tuition in their state of residence; a majority of undocumented students nationwide do not get in-state tuition. Second, every legal student gets access to "additional benefits" in the form of federal educational assistance, including grants and loans. These benefits are available only to those with legal status, and thus are "additional" benefits if by that you mean "benefits that undocumented students don't receive." Third, upon graduation, legal students are eligible for a huge benefit that undocumented students do not receive (see the NYT Mag article): legal employment within the United States.

[Holbytla]

I'll take lesser taxes instead thank you just the same.
For every story about helping out indigent illegal immigrants, there is a story out there detailing some illegal immigrant scamming the system.
That leads me to believe that the system is flawed.

So either uphold the law or change it. Either the unwitting child is legal or is not and if so is therefore subject to the laws of the country. Pick one.

Immigration laws as they stand now makes no one happy. Unless of course you are scamming the system. And if you need examples of aforementioned scams, I will provide some.

[nerdanel]

Well, you do have lesser taxes as you don't live in California, and AFAIK Massachusetts doesn't give in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants (but please let me know if that's wrong, as I haven't recently double-checked). If your complaint is that you've been paying for the pre-college education of undocumented immigrants for the past twenty-eight years, that really is between you and the Supreme Court.

I've now shared with you that there is a federal attempt in progress to change the law as regards these kids, which as Voronwë has shared may be thwarted by virtue of the current political climate. But we'll keep working on it until we get it through, certainly this decade and hopefully much sooner. Until we get federal reform, we've got to handle things on a state by state basis. Today, California clarified its laws, in a decision written by a justice that we all just voted to retain, Justice Ming Chin. (I noted recently that I had voted to retain him despite my frustration at his stance on same-sex marriage; I'm feeling a bit better about that vote today.) If Californians are unhappy with this construction of their laws - despite my unhappiness that this is possible for reasons explained in the American legal system thread - they can let Justice Chin know the next time he is up for reelection.

Finally: yes, we all agree that the system is flawed and we all want to change the laws. We're trying (speaking as an attorney who has put in my first 2,000 of many thousands of hours I expect to put into this issue over my lifetime.) In fact, right now I'm working pro bono on UK immigration law issues as well as ours. Just call me Hope and Change, Esq. (edit: in case that sounded remarkably sketchy given that I'm not qualified to practice in the UK, what I mean is that I'm part of a group of students who is working to set up a new pro bono, immigration law-focused student organization here that will function under the supervision of qualified solicitors).

[Holbytla]

Like Deval would ever be outdone by Arnold.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/ ... ic_39.html

There isn't a tax we don't embrace.

This discussion could go round and round, but is it a moral or legal issue?

My standpoint is make people legal, boot them out or change the law. To provide penny one to anything illegal barring jail, is to me, sinister.
Ignorance of the law being no excuse of course.

[anthriel]

I have a hard time using "illegal" or even "undocumented" to refer to these students who have lived in the United States all their lives, though I concede it is legally true (this is what led to the discussion between Anthy and me on FB).

I had no idea that this is what we were talking about. As I repeated in the FB thread (which I have now blocked myself from, I can't believe I broke my own darned rule), what I was commenting on was that you left out the word "illegal" in your introductory sentence, writing something like you didn't mind your dollars helping immigrants. Then you went on to say other people's "mileage may vary", implying that dollars helping immigrants would not sit well for some.

I don't think anyone is too worried about helping legal immigrants try to better themselves; that's the darned American dream in a nutshell. I felt that the word "illegal" was an important part of the message, since you were implying some people would have issues with it.

Now I understand that you left out the word "illegal" deliberately because you don't believe it pertains to these young people who have been raised here, through no choice of their own. While I contend they are still illegal, I certainly agree that they are functionally Americans, and while most of them do speak Spanish, I know that culturally they are far more American than anything else.

These people do present a different challenge; a challenge created, I must say, because of the ongoing, apparently unstoppable problem with illegal immigration. If their parents had been thwarted from entering this country illegally in the first place, they would be finding their education dollars in the country of their origin.




<flees from thread>

[Holbytla]

Or not at all, which is why I asked whether this was a question of morality or legality. The two in this instance are not linked imo.

[elfshadow]

Holby, I definitely agree with you that immigration overhaul should be a priority. I would much prefer that we find a way to make our current illegal immigrants legal and provide a better way for temporary and permanent legal entry into the US. But the reality of the situation is that effective immigration reform is not in the immediate future. And in the meantime, I don't believe we should punish people who moved here illegally as children by denying them an affordable college education.

Of course there will be illegal immigrants who will scam the system. I bet that there are many more citizens of America who scam the welfare system. Does this make me angry? Of course, and I think we should work on ways to improve these systems to prevent misuse. However, we will always have the free rider problem. That shouldn't deter us from giving benefits to those who really need them.

[Griffon64]

I'll flip my two cents in the pile: Why do people have to uproot themselves from their culture and way of life just to come to the States to have a better life? ( I'm speaking of "level 0" illegal immigrants, here, not the kids in the UC and other systems who's had a lifetime of being American. ) I have a vague idea of how jarring it is to move to a different culture, and I don't see why people have to pay that price just to have a life better than that their home countries afford them. I'd much rather have my tax money go into addressing that problem, while I am paying for the betterment of the lives of others ( and I don't mind doing that per se, given that I am fortunate enough to be in the blessed segment of the world's population as far as material goods go. ) Why still the gross inequality of quality of life? Why is the world still so splintered? What is the path to making it better? We cannot squeeze the world population into the United States, the UK and Europe, and wherever else people are migrating to escape to a better life. How do we direct resources to do the most good? A $12,000 a year tuition sponsored for an illegal alien ... $12,000 will go far in poor parts of the world, providing sanitation, wind energy for ... well, more than 1 person, certainly. Is lifting that level of hardship less worthy of support than providing a college education for one undocumented alien to lift their hardship in the United States a little?

Illegal immigration may seem like a US-specific problem, but people won't be moving here, leaving behind culture, familiarity, family, friends, support groups, everything, if conditions at home were better. That's further down the tree if you're looking for a cause - and a solution. To me, providing benefits to illegal immigrants in the States could be a good way of feeling fuzzy because I'm helping those less fortunate than me, but I have to ask: is it more for my benefit than for for the benefit of everyone in the world less fortunate than me?

I'd rather see the States have strong, enforced immigration laws and secure borders, and pouring resources out to help other countries better themselves - whole countries, not just individuals. And as far as those already in the US goes - I don't want to pull up their roots here. Provide a path to legal residency that requires adherence with law and culture.

I'd rather have a say in having my taxes directed to where it does more good in solving the problem than lifting up the higher percentiles a little more. But I'm sure there's some very good arguments to be made for why my position is wrong and uninformed.

[anthriel]

Griffy: